10 agents have been assigned, working in shifts of five persons. In this regard, the representation of the beneficiaries, the State, and the Commission have indicated that there haves been various disagreement; for example, Mr. Meléndez considers that the agents designated are insufficient to provide protection to all his family members and that, currently, some of them do not enjoy protection; whereas the State has indicated that Mr. Meléndez Quijano is in charge of deciding the distribution of the agents according to his needs. In addition, the representation of the beneficiaries and the Commission indicated difficulties because the State does not allow Colonel Meléndez or his family members to take part in the designation of agents, or inform them when the latter are substituted; furthermore, the way in which the measures are implemented is not coordinated between the State and the beneficiaries. Lastly, the representation of the beneficiaries indicated that anomalies have occurred in the way in which the persons who provide the protection treat the beneficiaries and vice versa. 8. Furthermore, both the representation of the beneficiaries and the Commission indicated that the vehicles that provide the escort service have had different problems and were substituted. However, the representation of the beneficiaries indicated that the State has not complied with its commitment to remove the logos from the vehicles made available for their safety, or provided the four communication radios. 9. The foregoing reveals that the State has made progress has been made in the implementation of the provisional measures, because it has assigned personnel and vehicles to provide protection. Despite this, the Court notes that difficulties and disagreements have arisen, because communication between the beneficiaries of the measures and the State has not been sufficient, permanent and adequate to reach agreement on the implementation of the measures. In this regard, the State should take the pertinent steps to ensure that the measures of protection are planned and implemented with the participation of the beneficiaries of the measures or their representation, so that the said measures are provided diligently and effectively, and to keep the beneficiaries informed of any progress in the execution of the measures. 8 The Court considers it fundamental that a climate of trust should exist between the institutions and persons responsible for providing the protection and those who benefit from this protection; to this end, fluid and constant communication may be useful. 9 Thus, the Court reiterates that coordination is essential for the effective implementation of these measures. 10. Furthermore, as regards the domestic protection mechanism that is regulated by the “Special Law for the Protection of Victims and Witnesses,” from what the representation of the beneficiaries has stated concerning the alleged inappropriateness of the inclusion of the beneficiaries in the said mechanism, or regarding the lack of clarity in the information provided in this regard, this Court does not understand that a prejudice has been caused to the beneficiaries or to the effectiveness of the protection provided by the State. 10 Regarding 8 Cf. Matter of Alvarado Reyes. Provisional measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the Court of November 23, 2012, third operative paragraph, and Matter of Millacura Llaipén et al. Provisional measures with regard to Argentina. Order of the Court of February 13, 2013, thirty-second considering paragraph. 9 Cf. similarly, Matter of Álvarez et al. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Court of May 22, 2013, thirty-seventh considering paragraph. 10 The Court also notes that, despite what Mr. Meléndez Quijano indicated on October 18, 2012 (supra footnotes 6 and 7), during the public hearing held on January 28, 2010, prior to the Court’s previous Order, the representation of the beneficiaries had presented to the Court a copy of “Decision No. 1, Reference UTE: 159-47206 of the Executive Technical Unit in the Area of the Protection of Victims and Witnesses.” This document states that the “Directorate of the Area of the Protection of Victims and Witnesses of the Executive Technical Unit of the Justice Sector […] received [a] request for measures of protection […] under the Special Law for the Protection of Victims and Witnesses.” This document also states that, “[p]ursuant to the domestic law of El Salvador, in this case 6